| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Again on the WA feat : using it, must the character make all his attacks with the same weapon, or can he whirlwind with a sword and a flail (for instance - and this wouldn't add to the number of attacks, of course)?
Taking appropriate penalties for attacking with one of them as an off-hand weapon, yes, it seems like it. I don't see any reason you couldn't.
You could even quickdraw other weapons. (as long as you dropped whatever you were holding as a separate free action)
Again on the WA feat : using it, must the character make all his attacks with the same weapon, or can he whirlwind with a sword and a flail (for instance - and this wouldn't add to the number of attacks, of course)?
No, same weapon
Whirlwhind attack
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Based on a strict reading of that rule, I don't see why a fighter couldn't attack with his mace against this foe, his short sword against that foe, and so on. He wouldn't get any extra attacks (as is specifically excluded by the rule), but it would let him, say, attack the undead next to him with a bludgeoning weapon, while attacking everyone else with his slashing weapon.
Does anybody else read it this way?
2WF isn't granted by a Feat, the Feat decreases the penalties...
And he's not talking about getting EXTRA attacks from 2WF, but just choosing which weapon he's already wielding to make the one attack per target with, i.e. not using 2WF rules at all but just taking advantage of the fact he is wielding both weapons.
Dropping a weapon is a Free Action not involving a Feat,
and Quickdraw affects how you draw a Weapon, not how many attacks you make.
If you are wielding two weapons ala normal 2WF setup, I don't even see why you should suffer the -2 penalty, because you aren't using the normal Full Attack Action (and gaining extra attacks thru dual-wielding, which the penalty is meant to offset), but are just using the specific Whirling Frenzy action, which doesn't specify one weapon being used, just one attack per target. No different than carrying around a mace and longsword in each hand, and one round making one attack with longsword, and another round making one attack with the mace: both would not have 2WF penalties, and would just be 1-Handed attacks. Otherwise, "Sword and Board" has serious problems.
I don't really see anything overpowered with allowing this, the only benefit may be overcoming specific DR or using specific banes/energy damage against varying enemies, but given you've paid for those weaopons and probably have the Feat-heavy 2WF chain to use them, it doesn't seem like a big deal: Everybody using Whirling Frenzy still makes the exact same number of attacks (well, assuming same reach), and using two separate 1H/Light weapons against different enemies is putting you at the disadvantage of using 1-Handed STR/P-Attack mods vs. 2-Handed. Dropping a weapon and Quickdrawing another has the possibly inconvenient side-effect of... dropping one of your weapons (which was apparently useful to attack at least one enemy).
Go for it if you want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To whit
*ahem* Carry on.
...
Go for it if you want to.
+1
sorry, i missread :P
I don't see a problem with cherry picking the weapons used in the attacks.
What I want to know is can i use combat manouvers instead of attacks? and If so, can I mix them up as well?
(Trip against Guy a, mace Guy B improved unarmed strike Guy c Shield slam Guys D and E and sunder the spear of Guy F)
Batts
Certain maneuvers can substitute for an attack, so sure. Juggling your entire "golf bag" of weapons within the constraints of remaining actions may not be possible, of course. (Unarmed Strike is optimal for this b/c it can work with all Maneuvers essentially)
|
I disagree that the mechanics of the feat and its interaction with reach imply only one weapon. If anything, they imply the opposite:
If you have a standard Reach weapon (say, a longspear) but no* natural reach (or other extra flange affecting how you can use that weapon), you could have up to eight targets who are "within your reach" but which you cannot attack with your spear. Per the text of Whirlwind Attack you may attack those eight creatures, but per the other relevant rules you would need to use a different weapon from those further away.
As for whether you need to take TWF penalties to do so. Per the CRB you take penalties the whenever you wield two weapons at the same time, but they were FAQed to only apply if you claimed an extra attack from TWF. Most people go with the FAQ (knowingly or accidentally).
(* Or more precisely, the standard 5 ft natural reach for a Medium or Small creature.)
With your interpretation, by your words, you get to attack an extra 8 targets. That is "claiming extra attacks by using two weapons".
That said, I follow Arcainx interpretation. You are making a single attack, one that allows you to attack every creature in reach and that requires a different attack roll for each target.
As it is a single attack, you can't change weapon or use a secondary weapon.
The feat test is ambiguous so it can be read both ways and we will never get a FAQ to clarify that.
For the same reason, you can't mix different kinds of attack, like trip, to a whirlwind attack.
All attacks are of the same type, either all standard attacks or all trip attempts.
the feat say:
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
it is clear that you do not get any iterative attacks. you gave them ALL up. you get to make one attack, which is rolled separately vs each enemy in reach.
it's one AOE attack.
I beg to differe, the feat name is Whirlwind attack, not Whirlwind attacks.
Let's face it, if the feat's text stopped after saying "instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach" you wouldn't even ask about using more then one weapon.
Then it continued to explain that each enemy get his own attack roll -notice that it didn't say you make a separate attack against each enemy but an attack roll, to me this come to explain how the rules manage this one attack. If it was a separate attack against each enemy the word roll is unnecessary, it should have just said:
"You must make a separate attack against each opponent.".
Forcefully adding the word 'roll' mean the attack is one, the rolls are many.
the feat is separated into 3 segments:
1: the action it take is a full round action.
2: you give up all attacks for one attack against all enemies in reach.
3: to see who is hit with this one attack you roll separately for each enemy.
More oddly, Whirlwind Attack being a full attack action means that if you have pounce you could whirlwind attack out of a charge and obtain any bonuses from charging.
Not exactly, Whirlwind says "use the full attack action" not "when you make a full attack". Ergo, as charge is its own separate full action, it wouldn't be included in the replacement effect of pounce turning a single attack into a full attack.
I believe that is in fact exactly what "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." is supposed to mean. I also hardly doubt someone with as powerful an ability as pounce missing out on a haste bonus attack would not be any dearly missed loss in power.
edit: Just checked, there's specifically an FAQ for how haste interacts with pounce. Basically since it's a replacement effect of the full attack with simply it plus an extra attack, pounce+haste works regardless of other things like even the ability to make a full attack in the first place.
Yes [You can gain a haste attack from pounce].This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn’t specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that pounce did not allow the extra attack from haste because pounce wasn’t using the full attack action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to bring this thread back on topic a bit and answer OP's question, I see no reason to demand that you cannot utilize two weapons while performing a whirlwind attack.
Personally I'd be surprised if the OP is still waiting around for an answer... 15 years later.
|
|
You still fail the "you get more attacks" test if you use two weapons with different reach.
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
...
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 9 squares adjacent to you.
If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.
If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.
All that assumes you can use two different weapons while using Whirlwind attack, something that is unclear and GM dependent.
If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the98 squares adjacent to you.If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.
If I am flying, and using whirlwind attack, am I limited to 8 attacks? Or can I make 26 attacks if I have an enemy in every square adjacent to me? Does the fact that I am flying mean I would be adding more attacks than I am allowed, and thus is prohibited by whirlwind attack?
If I have enlarge person going, or long arm, or fluid form, can I make more attacks because my max reach is increased but my min reach remains the same and I am still only using one weapon?
If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.All that assumes you can use two different weapons while using Whirlwind attack, something that is unclear and GM dependent.
This is NOT two-weapon fighthing, and does not impose the TWF penalty to attack rolls.
|
|
If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the98 squares adjacent to you.If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.
If I am flying, and using whirlwind attack, am I limited to 8 attacks? Or can I make 26 attacks if I have an enemy in every square adjacent to me? Does the fact that I am flying mean I would be adding more attacks than I am allowed, and thus is prohibited by whirlwind attack?
If I have enlarge person going, or long arm, or fluid form, can I make more attacks because my max reach is increased but my min reach remains the same and I am still only using one weapon?
Are you using two weapons? No.
So, why you ask a question that unrelated to my point?
This is NOT two-weapon fighthing, and does not impose the TWF penalty to attack rolls.
If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.All that assumes you can use two different weapons while using Whirlwind attack, something that is unclear and GM dependent.
Are you using two weapons and getting more attacks out of a full attack?
That is exactly how two-weapon fighting works.
Are you using two weapons? No.
So, why you ask a question that unrelated to my point?
Just trying to understand where and why you are applying a limit.
Are you using two weapons and getting more attacks out of a full attack?
That is exactly how two-weapon fighting works.
If I am facing 2 enemies, and have a BAB of 6, am wielding a reach weapon, and have IUS. Can I make one attack against a creature 10' away with the spear at BAB, and one creature next to me with a headbutt at BAB-5, do I incur TWF penalities on my attacks?
If I instead use whirlwind attack to make those same attacks, but both at BAB, do I now incur the TWF attack penalities? I have not gained any extra attacks. The only thing that has changed is the iterative penalty.
Note: Whirlwind attack does not impose any limitations to using a single weapon for attacks. eg, if I have 2 daggers, and one is silver and the other is +1, there are no restrictions placed on using the silver against the werewolf enemies in range, and the +1 against the DR/magic enemies in range. I don't even gain any extra attacks due to reach in this.
If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 9 squares adjacent to you.
If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.
If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.
Assuming you are a medium creature - wouldn't that be 8, 12, and 24?
|
|
Assuming you are a medium creature - wouldn't that be 8, 12, and 24?
If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 9 squares adjacent to you.
If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.
If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.
LOL, yes.
I will try to wiggle out of that error by saying that you can hit a diminutive creature in your square if you are using a non-reach weapon. ;-)
But then it can be countered by "You aren't counting flying creatures".
Assuming you are a medium creature - wouldn't that be 8, 12, and 24?
If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 9 squares adjacent to you.
If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.
If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.
LOL, yes.
I will try to wiggle out of that error by saying that you can hit a diminutive creature in your square if you are using a non-reach weapon. ;-)
But then it can be countered by "You aren't counting flying creatures".
So washed he forgot the 3D threatened squares.
|
|
The problem is that the wording of the feat can be interpreted in two ways:
1) You make one cumulative attack against all the opponents in reach and make a separate roll for each target to resolve it. As you attack multiple targets it is not an AoE attack.
2) You make a separate attack against each opponent in reach.
Each interpretation has its set of problems and we will never get an official reply.
Obviously, I consider 1) the correct answer, but it is possible that the Devs would have ruled differently.
The problem is that the wording of the feat can be interpreted in two ways:
1) You make one cumulative attack against all the opponents in reach and make a separate roll for each target to resolve it. As you attack multiple targets it is not an AoE attack.
2) You make a separate attack against each opponent in reach.
Each interpretation has its set of problems and we will never get an official reply.
Obviously, I consider 1) the correct answer, but it is possible that the Devs would have ruled differently.
There is an issue with the argument that using two weapons with different reach gives extra attacks. Using two weapons does not meet the qualification of "...bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."
Counterpoint, TWF (and taking the TWF attack penalty) also is not a bonus attack from feats, spells, or abilities. It is something any character can just choose to do. No one here is suggesting that you can TWF with whirlwind to make one attack against all creatures in range, then also get offhand iteratives on top of that. But if the extra attack from TWF is prevented, does the extra weapon count as providing extra attacks (personally, IMO, it does not, in the same way being enlarged, using long arm, or fluid form, does not).
But, for option 1 we should actually examine the text of the feat itself more closely.
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack ... against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
Its not one single attack (or cumulative attack as you stated it), with a seperate attack roll for each target. It is one attack against each. That is, it is multiple attacks, with multiple attack rolls, against multiple targets.
So obviously option 2 is the correct answer :). And the only requirement is they be in reach of your valid melee attack.
Whirlwind Attack Feat Description
"The Whirlwind Attack feat (Core Rulebook, p.136) says:
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."
The key phrase here is that you make one melee attack against each opponent within reach.
The feat does not say you are making a series of attacks or a full-attack action with different weapons, but rather that you make “one melee attack” at your full base attack bonus against all targets within reach.
This is typically understood as being with whatever weapon (or unarmed strike) you are currently using to perform your melee attack.General Rules for Full-Attack Actions- In a normal full-attack action, a character can make multiple attacks, and they can switch weapons between attacks (as long as they have the necessary actions to do so).
However, Whirlwind Attack is a specific type of full-attack action, and it only allows one melee attack per target within reach, rather than a normal sequence of iterative attacks.Switching between weapons: Pathfinder rules don’t explicitly prevent switching weapons between attacks during a full-attack action (if you have the actions available to do so, such as a free action to drop a weapon or a swift action to switch grips), but Whirlwind Attack doesn’t follow the same rules as a standard full attack.
Unarmed Strikes and Reach Weapons- If you’re using a reach weapon (like a glaive or long spear), your reach is typically 10 feet or more, and your melee attacks for Whirlwind Attack will use that reach.
If you attempt to switch to Improved Unarmed Strike during the same Whirlwind Attack sequence, the problem arises because unarmed strikes typically have only a 5-foot reach (unless you’re using something like a Monk’s Ki Reach or a similar ability).
This means the two...
I was GMing a campaign right after COVID started and one of the players wanted to play a Monk with WA (Whirlwind Attack) and had many similar questions about it use. So to be fair to the player I deep dived the FEAT at the time 13 years of posts and rules questions on this and other Forums. The Cliff Notes Answer is it turned out about 70% in favor of the Multiple Weapons are allowed in a single round use of the Feat and 30% in contradiction. The argument for this type of use I will summarize for you. Researching this FEAT did more for my understanding of COMBAT rules than any other research I have done.
To start like Most of the rules and Feats came from the original 3.5e of DND. In the 3.5 players handbook the feat was verbatim the same with the exception of the flavor text.
"You can strike nearby opponents in an amazing, spinning attack."
Pathfinder version of the flavor text reads:
"You can strike out at every foe within reach."
Like the arguments in this current post it is believed the Devs changed this just for this reason. 3.5e was being used like the 70% majority even with that verbiage so when it was imported it was changed to add a little clarity. "You can strike out at every foe in reach" supports the multiple attacks rather than a single swing with one weapon. Most feats that want restriction placed on the feat add verbiage to imply this. A great example of this is the Cleave feat:
"You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing."
This helps to clarify it is with same weapon 1 swing.
The next point has already been mentioned in this thread "make one melee attack....against (each) opponent within reach." Emphasis on each. Which implies multiple strikes not a single swing. Now comes my biggest learning experience as a GM. Do this exercise search "Combat Pathfinder" it pulls up (on Google search) the d20PFSRD on there do your standard Ctrl F and type in "Melee Attack". It pulls up about 48 hits of those words. You can quickly go thru each use of these word in less than 5 minutes but I can almost guarantee you you will gain a new understanding of the rules you may have missed previously. SO this is the restrictive word in the FEAT. After doing this exercise you will understand a Melee can be:
Melee Weapon
Unarmed Strike
Natural Weapons (Claws and bite)
certain Combat Maneuvers can be used in place of a Melee Attack (ie Trip and Sunder)
So in the case of my Player after completing all this research I allowed them to play the FEAT and attack with their Unarmed Strike and Longspear against each opponent in reach. I felt confident in my interpretation of how the FEAT functioned. When he later added the Lunge feat and this allowed him to strike with his Unarmed Strikes 5-10 feet out and/or Strike with his Longspear 10-15 feet out.
My last point is about the FEAT tax for WA is brutal. I tried to talk my Player into using a Brawler or Fighter so it would come on board much faster. But he stuck to his guns. That is about one of the most brutal Feats lines to go down with what all you give up. He wasn't even that strong against a group mobs by the time it came online (compared to casters) and because he gave up so many feats he was weak against bosses compared to other melees in the group.
I think we have a tendency to add to much realism into a Fantasy world campaign. As a GM we must never forget they are the hero's., sometimes villains, of the story. The most popular use of this FEAT is a WHIP build that with a couple additional feats can threaten out 15 feet even before lunge and enlarge are added to the mix. I have seen zero arguments on this feat that this use is not possible. Imagine 20+ opponents being Tripped in one round of combat with a single weapon. Striking out 20 separate times to wrap the ancle of your foes yank them off there feet to fall prone. That is a lot to do in 6 seconds but it is what the FEAT allows.
Hope this was helpful,
SP
I beg to differe, the feat name is Whirlwind attack, not Whirlwind attacks.
Let's face it, if the feat's text stopped after saying "instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach" you wouldn't even ask about using more then one weapon.
Then it continued to explain that each enemy get his own attack roll -notice that it didn't say you make a separate attack against each enemy but an attack roll, to me this come to explain how the rules manage this one attack. If it was a separate attack against each enemy the word roll is unnecessary, it should have just said:
"You must make a separate attack against each opponent.".
Forcefully adding the word 'roll' mean the attack is one, the rolls are many.the feat is separated into 3 segments:
1: the action it take is a full round action.
2: you give up all attacks for one attack against all enemies in reach.
3: to see who is hit with this one attack you roll separately for each enemy.
Late to the party, hi everyone.
Sorry to rain on your parade Zza Ni, but that's not how we read that sentence in English:
Take one sip from each glass.
That doesn't mean the person has to line all the glasses up, have a multi-pronged straw and take a single sip that draws liquid from all of the glasses at once. It means that they get to pick up each glass one at a time and take separate sips from each.
The same language is used in Whirlwind attack. "One attack against each enemy" means they get separate attacks against each enemy. They're not the same attack. The language about making a separate attack roll against each enemy is a clarification, but doesn't change the meaning.